I think you're misunderstanding me, which may be my fault because I'm being a little vague. I'm talking specifically about abortion.
There are those that want abortion banned under all circumstances, allowed, and allowed only in some cases. That third option is deceiving, however, and should for all practical purposes be treated as "banned" because:
a) one must prove they meet the government's requirements
b) the government with such a law is de facto hostile and run by those predisposed to deny requests
c) the government must make their decision quickly (which may be impossible, like if a rape must be proven in court)
It really is as simple as that.
The reason I was being vague is that this applies in a lot of other cases.
Frankly, I think the problem isn't that some algorithm is causing a divide or merely reflecting it. The real problem is that many people aren't used to thinking about the second-order details of their policies, they just respond and vote with their gut.
(Ironically, the same side that wants to ban abortion also tends to argue against policies like UBI because they say if the government can grant it the government can also take it away.)
We know, but notice it took you three posts to actually mention the word. In your other posts you euphemistically used the nicer sounding (and more general) "healthcare" word to make your point. That's what OP is talking about: You're ironically doing the same thing the "other side" does. Using euphemisms and vague, but extreme positions (healthcare itself is under attack) such that it's hard to have conversation.
For what it's worth, I agree with you, but it's hard not to notice you using the same tactics the other side uses.
Like I said later in my post, this applies in other cases. Those that wanted to ban alcohol didn't consider the second order effect of creating powerful criminal organizations. Bans on drugs have done the same thing, and outlawing guns would have the same effect.
Similarly, policies that would outlaw, say, coal burning in our country will just outsource that pollution to other countries because we don't enforce the ban on exporters. Such policies make some folks feel good about themselves because they don't think them through to their logical conclusions.
And with regards to abortion specifically, I didn't even get in to the forms of punishment and tracking being proposed. That's where there's a middle ground -- exclusively between far-right conservatives.
There are those that want abortion banned under all circumstances, allowed, and allowed only in some cases. That third option is deceiving, however, and should for all practical purposes be treated as "banned" because:
a) one must prove they meet the government's requirements
b) the government with such a law is de facto hostile and run by those predisposed to deny requests
c) the government must make their decision quickly (which may be impossible, like if a rape must be proven in court)
It really is as simple as that.
The reason I was being vague is that this applies in a lot of other cases.
Frankly, I think the problem isn't that some algorithm is causing a divide or merely reflecting it. The real problem is that many people aren't used to thinking about the second-order details of their policies, they just respond and vote with their gut.
(Ironically, the same side that wants to ban abortion also tends to argue against policies like UBI because they say if the government can grant it the government can also take it away.)